Serious Greatest of All Time Candidates

[Bix]

Baba was a more consistent draw than Inoki, IIRC.

[smkelly]

Where does Misawa fall in? Top ten?

 

Oh, and thanks Loss for clearing up the southern tag thing. So that's the classic face in peril situation then?

[kjh]

Hashimoto may be above Choshu as a draw, because when he was the ace they ran Dome shows a lot more frequently than when Choshu was on top.

[Death From Above]

I read a stat (on the internet, no less, so it must be true) that once upon a time Hashimoto had main evented the most Dome shows, so it's possible. Not sure if it's still true or not, though I can't imagine given the decline in Japan that any of the recent years there would effect that particular discussion point as far as drawing goes.

[tomk]

I was offline for most of March and missed both this and the Tiger mask thread (which are kind of interconnected). Interesting threads that spin off into multiple tangents a couple of which I wanted to add something to. I will try to avoid getting caught up in any argument as to whether if you want to avoid diseased vagina, you should really stop going out with women who insist on going by the title “ladies”. But there are a bunch of other things that I think are worth revisiting.

 

I was thinking about this over the last couple of days, but when I started posting about wrestling on the net over fifteen years ago the range of acceptable "best ever" candidates was really small. It expanded a bit over the years but by and large there was a very small number of candidates that wouldn't be met with accusations of insanity/trolling. I would say about ten years ago the serious candidates would have been:

 

Fast forward ten years and the explosion of available footage and access to it and it seems like there are a mammoth number of available GOAT contenders.

Yeah of course this has happened, changing perspective is what keeps history alive. Yes of course things have changed. As they should.

 

I don’t remember if it was Jasper Johns or William De Kooning who when asked “which of the old masters influences “ him, famously answered “They don’t inspire me, I inspire them”.

 

But the point (beyond the sheer joy of being a cocky asshole) is that is how history (especially art history) works. We look at the past from the perspective of what is going on today (what are the questions of contemporary life). This is especially important in the arts as it is how we keep the “old masters” relevant. If they aren’t historically relevant they end up being nostalgia curiosities.

 

From jdw 96 piece on Tijuana:

 

From 1981-'84, Tom Billington was one of the top four workers in wrestling. It was a matter of opinion as to who was number one, but the consensus was that he along with Ric Flair, Ted DiBiase, and the late Bruiser Brody were the best in the business.

Things do change.

 

Would anyone other than Flair make that list today? Why ?

Why wasn’t Hansen in that top four then? What was going on that made people overlook Hansen? Why does the current wrestling fan not overlook Hansen?

 

 

 

Childs

It also seems like Dave fails to understand that looking back at old art using standards which have evolved over time is something that we do constantly as thinking humans. Yes, it's helpful to understand how various works were viewed in the context of their times. But in other fields, it's generally accepted that as modern consumers, we're still allowed to judge them.

 

And I'm not saying Dave is dumb. This is just a real analytical blind spot for him.

It is a really weird analytical blind spot because it is something that he does every week.

 

Fuck look at how Inoki importance has evolved in Meltzer’s esteem as MMA has grown.

 

I mean one of the odd things about Meltzer is that on the one hand he is a guy who is probably the most important secondary resource for what happened in wrestling over the last thirty years; while on the other hand he doesn’t seem to use the Observers for that purpose. When Elizabeth Taylor dies, the New York Times already has had her obit pre-written (and constantly updated) thirty years in advance. The obit writer will use the New York Times art sections as resource for writing that obit.

 

When Meltzer writes a historical piece or an obit, you get the sense that he is doing all the research fresh. Not going through his old observers but starts from scratch calling contacts. He has written numerous pieces on the history of national expansion. Each time they are really different pieces, written from a series of different perspectives depending on what is going on now. When he writes about Vince’s expansion today it is framed more by his contemporary observation of Dana White, than it is by what was written in the Observer’s during the 80s. It was framed differently three years ago. And framed differently than it was five years ago or a month before that.

 

There are times where I find that aspect of Meltzer to be very appealing as he is constantly revisiting the same stuff from different angles. There are other times where it is frustrating. There are times where it feels like he lucked into writing about a business where people die young (so there are lots of resources/people to contact) and that guys who actually make it into there old age (where there are fewer people he can contact) get short shrift.

 

When Meltzer writes about the HOF he makes a big deal of what the contemporary people in the biz think vis a vis veterans. Dick Murdoch gets a ton of support from his contemporaries but isn’t someone who is seen as important to the modern generation. Moolah gets less support from her contemporaries but is someone whose legend has grown with the current generation.

 

One of the things that makes Meltzer’s rollerderby pieces more interesting than most rollerderby writing that you find elsewhere is that he has the historical perspective of wrestling. So he writes in terms of what are the historical lessons. What he writes are historical pieces where other rollerderby writers merely write pieces celebrating nostalgia.

 

That history v nostalgia is the difference between looking at the past through standards which have evolved and trying EL-P style to hold on to positive memories of Tanaka.

 

For someone who is critical of looking back with historical perspective, Meltzer does it all the time.

 

Loss says

 

Also, Dave doesn't even agree with the concept of re-watching and changing opinions. He sees no value in it, as he has explained many times, because all that matters is what was considered good at the time, because wrestlers don't make matches for future audiences to watch.

1) This is a second huge blindspot. Dave's assumption that intention of performer should govern how we interpret something.

 

I know watching Iron Sheik v Slaughter that their goal was to keep an audience made up of lowest common denominator entertained, and to scope out which rat they wanted to double team that night. Entertaining audience is pretty much the motivation behind the development of all popular and vernacular forms of entertainment. Saying that one shouldn't analyze any cultural product that isn't "fine art" ( where artist is supposedly motivated by pure artistic/aesthetic principles or Angle matches where he claims to be motivated by desire to have "five star match") goes against everything that we do as a society.

 

 

2) And well we do know that future audiences do watch these matches. Why should we pretend that they don't? We know that the WWE just put out a DVD of the top 100 wrestlers. How influential will that DVD be? There are a bunch of people here who have traded with Danielson and a bunch of your recent indy/WWWF/TNa workers. The OVW workers watched and studied a set of tapes. The Deep South and Florida WWF guys watched a different set. The past is being revisited with new cannons created constantly.

 

Loss again

 

I just wanted to come back to this one more time because this was one point I forgot about before. Mass changing of opinions coincides with footage availability. That's the common thread. The reason there is a mass change at one time is because most people discussing it are seeing it at the same time for the first time.

1)Footage available is important one.

2)The packaging of footage also matters. The first time I heard people really start talking about Fujiwara was when the NIFTY folks (the online source of NOAH matches that took place that week) put together a best of Fujiwara matches thing and people started talking “Hey this is something worth watching”.

3)I think what guys are doing currently also affects what people watch. After the NOAH/AJ split when Fuchi was elevated as heavyweight there were a bunch of people who asked “What should we go back and watch that this guy was doing as a junior, back when we ignored AJ juniors?”.

4)I think there has been a major change over the last decade about how people approach clipped matches, where people are much less willing to praise wrestlers who we don’t have unclipped footage of. Some of that is result of ECW. Some is result of classics (especially All Japan Women classics).

 

 

The All Japan '90s crew, or let's say early '90s Liger, were received as being top-of-the-line workers within a couple years of hitting their prime. Granted in the '90s it was among a smaller community of people who traded tapes and read WON, but still. Whereas there was at least *some* Fujiwara floating around and he never got a whiff of such praise until recently. That's the difference.

He was an 80s New Japan heavyweight. No one in any critical circle was paying attention or cared about 80s New Japan heavyweights .. I also think the ascent of actual MMA is something that has effected the way his stuff looks.

[Ditch]

4)I think there has been a major change over the last decade about how people approach clipped matches, where people are much less willing to praise wrestlers who we don’t have unclipped footage of. Some of that is result of ECW. Some is result of classics (especially All Japan Women classics).

Could you expand on this?

[El-P]

That history v nostalgia is the difference between looking at the past through standards which have evolved and trying EL-P style to hold on to positive memories of Tanaka.

I'm not *trying* to hold on to positive memories of Takada, Tom. I have positive memories of Takada. I've said it a thousand times already, I haven't watched a Takada match in like maybe 8 or 9 years. Probably 10. Now, if tomorrow I watch a ton of Takada matches and have a different perspective on his work than before, and for some reason I think he was not as good as I thought I'll have exactly zero problem admitting it. I'm not working on nostalgia, I just haven't seen the matches in a long time, and my memories are so positive that I'm pretty shocked that people despise him that much. Especially when the same people pimp Jerry Lawler as an all-time great worker, because I actually saw a lot of big Lawler matches, and although I do think Jerry was excellent, I don't think he was nearly as great as he's pimped to be. That's not from memories, that's from watching matches not so long ago. So, I figure : those people who pimp Lawler as one the greatest wrestler ever are overpushing it, maybe they are also overpushing the fact Takada sucks. That's all. But, like I said, if I rewatch Takada's matches tomorrow and think they suck and don't hold up, I'll have zero problem admitting it. I don't care. I'l be shocked and amazed, but that's it.

 

Just another thing, on the "looking at the past through standards which have evolved", I'm sorry but it's exactly the opposite of using a historical perspective. If there's *one* thing you absolutely don't do in History, that's it. You never ever look at a period with your own modern standarts, it makes no sense and just leads to nonsense and poor interpretations. I should now, I've graduated as a History Master. I understand what you say about this very particular topic, but you're not talking about a "history" here. Call it whatever you want, "objective analysis", "criticism" or something, but not "history". History would on the contrary be looking at who was considered as the greatest then, and for what reasons. Which is something different. Historically, Tiger Mask was considered one of the greatest wrestler of all-time. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just the fact. Now, today, we have the right to look at this fact and analyse why this was the case then, and why in retrospect Tiger's match don't hold up.

[Guest hack myers]

If someone said Buddy Rose, I wouldn't complain.

[Dylan Waco]

I wouldn't say Buddy is someone I consider a viable number one contender, but he's right at the top of the second level and as weird as this sounds it wouldn't seem strange to me for someone to have him in their top five above other guys who are widely considered "GOATC." He's be in my personal top twenty at this point and possibly even as high as the back end of my top 15. Would have been interesting to see him stay around the AWA through 87 and into 88 if they had given him a singles push. Assuming he hadn't let himself go (though even as a huge fat guy in 88 and 89 he was still a very good wrestler) he would have had some interesting guys to work with and even though it was a dying promotion you get the feeling that might have been enough to catapult him into the very top tier. Even without that Rose is one of the most watchable guys of all time in the sense that I never tired of him and I'm always excited to see when something new of his pops up out of the archive.

[WingedEagle]

2+ years later I'm curious how the thinking in this discussion has evolved. Really fascinating to read through this, particularly some of the thoughts on peak vs. longevity (I'm in camp with those who don't hold the Mets years against Willie Mays) joshi, lucha and Tenryu (who's stock seems to have permanently risen). In the wake of the AJ 80s footage and now the 80s lucha set, what do folks think is different at this point in time?

[NintendoLogic]

Since this thread has risen from the dead, I'll weigh in on the Bret/Choshu debate.

 

Choshu may have drawn more than Bret, but I don't buy that he was a way bigger draw. For one thing, even if you set aside the Farmer list, I'm pretty sure that Bret headlined more big shows than Choshu. He also had a much higher international profile. I suspect that at his peak, Bret was a bigger worldwide star than Choshu ever was.

[Childs]

But that's primarily because WWF was an international company. Bret might have headlined more big shows, depending on how you define that. But it would be hard to argue that he had the same impact in his own country that Choshu did in Japan in the '80s. He was obviously an important figure in setting up the late '90s wrestling boom, but for a variety of reasons, some not his fault, he never became the guy who made promotions rise and fall.

[Loss]

Dave once had a stat that Riki Choshu has headlined more shows that drew a $1 million+ gate than anyone in wrestling history. Of course, he said that back in 2000, so I'm sure the dome Manias that happen every year may mean that isn't true anymore.

 

I will also add that you should check out the latest classic WON for a good understanding of Choshu's impact. Really great work from Dave.

[NintendoLogic]

I have my doubts about the accuracy of that statistic. I went to prowrestlinghistory.com, and from what I could tell, New Japan's only million-plus gates were from Dome shows. Choshu only headlined a handful of those. Certainly less than Hashimoto, and probably less than Inoki and Mutoh as well. And All Japan did million-dollar gates when it sold out the Budokan, so he's probably also behind Misawa. Even if the statistic is true, it seems like it would be largely dependent on outside factors like the yen-to-dollar exchange rate. I'm not disputing that Choshu was a much bigger deal in his own country or that he had a huge impact. But saying that he was a "waaaaay better draw" is greatly overstating things.

 

For the record, I think Bret's in-ring body of work absolutely creams Choshu's. But that should come as no surprise.

[Dylan Waco]

I think Choshu is a better worker and I am actually struggling to think of any reason why Bret would be considered near his level as a draw. I'm all for revisionism, but that's a case that I would have to see made in great detail in order to believe it.

[Loss]

How much credit do we give Choshu (and Fujinami) for making native versus native matches a viable option for promoting matches?

[Loss]

To flip the question, what are the hugely successful shows headlined by Bret Hart that we can point to in his favor? There is a clear difference between shows he headlined and shows he didn't in 1997, but does he get any credit for Summerslam '92, or did the WWF brand sell that show? For the most part, Bret as a draw is someone who was better than others around him in the same timeframe, but he isn't in the upper echelon of all-time draws. In some ways, this is sad since I do think Bret's hot 1997 run is what kickstarted the turnaround for the WWF when he wasn't there to really reap the benefits of the work he put in. But it is what it is. Still, is Bret one of the five or ten biggest stars in the history of American wrestling? If we're going to poke holes in claims regarding Choshu's stardom, that's fine, but let's be fair and do the same to Bret.

 

Also, I realize this doesn't have anything to do with him as a wrestler, but I could be convinced that Riki Choshu is the best booker of all time.

[JerryvonKramer]

I know some others really disagree with me over this, but Bret has to take some credit for Summerslam 92. He was over huge with kids here and the prospect of seeing Bret must have sold some tickets. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just my school either, Bret merch was everywhere in the shops. Bret seemed to be everyone's favourite wrestler. Maybe other UK posters can chime to support or deny this.

 

It's one of those things I keep putting off, but I want to look at European tours from the early to mid-90s to see if Bret had any tangible affect on gates in different places.

 

They ran some shows headlined by Legion of Doom, some headlined by Davey Boy, some headlined by Bret. I don't know if anyone has ever looked into that stuff closely. Bret was meant to be big in Germany as well during that time.

 

If we can find shows headlined by Dino Bravo vs. Roddy Piper (for example) drawing as well as shows headlined by Bret, then it was WWF brand alone selling the gates. I'm interested by it.

 

He must have been a big draw in Canada also.

 

Supposing we can prove all of that, I still don't know how it stacks up vs. Choshu, but at least you can start making a case. Without it, as a US draw, I don't think there's any contest.

[cheapshot]

I know some others really disagree with me over this, but Bret has to take some credit for Summerslam 92. He was over huge with kids here and the prospect of seeing Bret must have sold some tickets. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just my school either, Bret merch was everywhere in the shops. Bret seemed to be everyone's favourite wrestler. Maybe other UK posters can chime to support or deny this.

Bret was indeed over huge in 1992, but then again so were Savage and Warrior. I'd say babyface wise, in the UK, it would of been Bulldog -> Bret/Warrior (Tied) -> Savage at the time.

[JerryvonKramer]

See I never really saw any Bulldog love; Warrior sure. Maybe being in Wales there was a little anti-English sentiment creeping in re: Davey Boy? My perception was always that they packaged Bulldog superbly at Summerslam to sell the idea that he was a massive star "back home" back to the US audience. Stick a union jack across someone's ass and they are going to go over huge in a big football atmosphere Wembley show. Not saying I deny that Bulldog was popular, but just that I wonder how much.

 

I might take a look at Graham's site to start digging into some of this stuff.

[cheapshot]

See I never really saw any Bulldog love; Warrior sure. Maybe being in Wales there was a little anti-English sentiment creeping in re: Davey Boy? My perception was always that they packaged Bulldog superbly at Summerslam to sell the idea that he was a massive star "back home" back to the US audience. Stick a union jack across someone's ass and they are going to go over huge in a big football atmosphere Wembley show. Not saying I deny that Bulldog was popular, but just that I wonder how much.

 

I might take a look at Graham's site to start digging into some of this stuff.

You have to remember, in 1992 Bulldog was all over the tabloids with interviews and articles about him in The Sun & Mirror amongst others promoting Summerslam. I think you are underestimating to what extent Bulldog was over to the UK audience.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah you're probably right. I'll be interested to see if Bulldog helped to pop gates too. We could find that he was a bigger European draw than Bret. Watch this space.

[cheapshot]

Yeah you're probably right. I'll be interested to see if Bulldog helped to pop gates too. We could find that he was a bigger European draw than Bret. Watch this space.

I think that Bret Hart was over HUGE in Germany at least, arguably as much as Bulldog was in the UK but for a far longer period. I'd say that Bret Hart was easily the biggest draw in Europe between '92-'97 overall.

[JerryvonKramer]

Just remembering this but, anecdotally, I remember quite a few people had this over their houses.

 

 

One of the first things I'd do is check out what wrestling tapes people had and I'd always be mildly disappointed to find that there. It was weirdly old too, like most tapes were from 88 onwards, but that stuff was mid-80s.

[cheapshot]

I think a thread sharing memories of VHS releases would be fun.